Trial reportScientific reports2025
Comparative efficacy and prognostic impact of continuous versus intermittent hydrocortisone administration in septic shock patients.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Continuous versus Intermittent Hydrocortisone for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Pooled it
- A clinician's guide to corticosteroid therapy in pneumonia and critical illness: agent selection, dosing, monitoring, and interactions.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2026Review
- Refractory septic shock: our updated pragmatic approach.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Continuous vs. intermittent infusion of corticosteroids in septic shock: a GRADE-based systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of continuous versus intermittent hydrocortisone administration on septic shock patients. Sixty patients were randomized into two groups: one receiving intermittent doses of 50 mg of hydrocortisone every 6 h and the other a continuous infusion of 200 mg/day. After a 7-day treatment period and a 28-day follow-up, we observed no significant differences in the duration of sustained shock, hospital, and ICU stays between the groups. However, those in the continuous infusion group experienced shorter periods of mechanical ventilation and vasopressor use, with significant improvements in hemodynamic stability. Both treatment approaches improved arterial pressure and lactate clearance, with no significant differences in heart rate or cortisol levels between the groups at the end of the treatment. Notably, shock reversal rates were higher and 28-day mortality rates were lower in the continuous infusion group. These results suggest that continuous hydrocortisone infusion may be more effective for managing septic shock, potentially leading to better patient outcomes without an increase in adverse reactions. This method could be considered for broader clinical implementation in septic shock treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.